|
| ▲ | henryrobbins00 a minute ago | parent | next [-] |
| Michael Clarkson teaches OCaml at Cornell. I highly recommend his free course materials [1]. He’s an excellent educator. Learning functional programming paradigms had a major influence on how I design programs. Clarkson also taught snippets from the Pragmatic Programmer, which was equally influential (as it has been for many many others) [2]. [1] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110 [2] https://pragprog.com/titles/tpp20/the-pragmatic-programmer-2... |
|
| ▲ | dadoum an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My experience with OCaml has transformed how I think about programming and complex system design. This may also be true if you learn any other functional programming language, but OCaml is easy and flexible which makes it good imo as a door towards the more formal part of comp sci. Even for steering an LLM I think this might help. |
| |
| ▲ | f1shy 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | My experience with lisp was exactly that: it completely changed how I think about programming, but much more, how I think about systems and engineering. (I learned it through SICP) |
|
|
| ▲ | xiaoyu2006 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can also learn for your own amusement, and solely for the fun of comprehension; a lot of mathematician were driven by this. It's a shame current social value places so much utilitariaism on learning. |
| |
| ▲ | f1shy 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This. The question can be seen like “should I learn to solve sodoku, if a computer can do it better?” | |
| ▲ | underlipton 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As always, it is good to be aware that many people are too anxious about more existential issues to comfortably an consistently expend effort on intellectually-taxing tasks that aren't perceived as directly related to their survival. If it's an issue with social values, it's less of one related to learning as it is to perpetuating artificial scarcity. | | |
| ▲ | behnamoh 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This. The other comments ignore the fact that we're humans and can't just learn things for the joy of it unless all our needs are taken care of (which is never). |
| |
| ▲ | _HMCB_ 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | This ^ |
|
|
| ▲ | monsieurbanana 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You could have asked this question 10 years ago, long before llms. It's not like you'd realistically would get an ocaml job back then when there's so few of them, so why bother? The answer is still the same as well, people learn ocaml either because they enjoy it, or because learning a functional language makes them a better programmer overall and teaches your brain to approach a problem in a different way. |
|
| ▲ | adalacelove an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Should you learn history if it is already written in a book? Should you live if others are already living? |
| |
|
| ▲ | nine_k 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Outsourcing all the thinking to machines may have consequences you might not like. An oblique explanation: https://croissanthology.com/earring |
|
| ▲ | ahoka an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why learn an instrument when you can just press play? |
| |
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Cultural inertia: until recently, you couldn't just press play and get even a wide selection of music: for most of history, if you wanted music, you had to make it or hire someone to do it for you. More recently, you had to go to the store and buy it, which meant you didn't have much variety. Today, learning an instrument is for social status, inheriting the shine of the past, where music was rare and costly. The reason to learn an instrument today is because the former situation was romanticized. It'll probably take a generation before people ease into guilt-free enjoying infinite, fully generated music. | | |
| ▲ | jonahx 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | These theories sound vaguely plausible. I would rate them as about 5% true and 95% false, as explanation of the past and prediction of the future. The satisfaction of learning to do something difficult isn't going away, and the social status associated with it won't either. | |
| ▲ | toolslive 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | your body needs exercise or you end up an obese couch potato. Your mind is similar: it needs exercise or you end up a dunce. |
| |
| ▲ | dismalaf 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why does anyone have any hobbies? |
|
|
| ▲ | sgt 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Seeing that you already know programming, I'd say it'd be less risky for you. But the only reason you're able to pilot an LLM to do programming for you, is because you understand programming and architecture. But what about the future generations skipping the step of learning the OCaml's, the C's, the Python's...? It's quite concerning. Oh by the way, yes. Learn OCaml! |
|
| ▲ | doc_ick 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean if you want to let llms do everything for you go ahead. Wall-e implications aside, it seems like a great self centric life. |
|
| ▲ | sublinear an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What the hell else do you have to do?! |
